History at Hogwarts (was Re: Wizard Persecution )

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 126063


SSSusan previously:
> > I've NO idea why DD allows Binns and Trelawney to teach if 
> > they're really not all that good, but I can't imagine that he 
> > would cave to Ministry pressure to teach a watered-down history 
> > curriculum, where important but upsetting facts have been 
> > removed to "protect" children's sensibilities.

Lupinlore: 
> Oh, I'm sure he wouldn't cave if pressed directly.  But if the
> Ministry said "You've got a perfectly good history professor who 
> isn't costing a knut, we won't give you funds to hire another 
> one," that is another situation.


SSSusan:
This raises an interesting question.  DOES the Ministry fund 
Hogwarts teacher salaries or general operating expenses?  What *is* 
the Ministry's degree of oversight?  How much autonomy does Hogwarts 
have?  Fudge has said, "I've *allowed* you to..." when speaking to 
DD, and we saw him clamp down during Umbridge's reign, but I wonder 
what the Hogwarts "charter" says about authority and whether the 
Ministry has any fiscal role to play?

Back to the Binns & Trelawney as teachers issue (not to mention the 
hiring of Lockhart), I have to confess that I *don't* understand how 
this fits with what we know of DD.  He seems to care very much about 
children and about doing the right thing.  So -- esp. if I assume 
the Ministry offers NO financial assistance to Hogwarts -- why does 
DD keep these folks and why hire Lockhart?  Yes, *perhaps* he's kept 
Trelawney in order to protect her, as has been hypothesized.  Yes, 
*perhaps* it's hard to find someone to teach DADA, but was 
the "jinx" well known at the point of finding a replacement for 
Quirrell?  

Others have recently been talking about aspects of the books which 
have felt forced to them [Ginny's emergence in OotP, Ron as prefect 
& Keeper in OotP].  For me, this notion of crappy teachers being 
hired/retained at Hogwarts bothers me more than those others.

Siriusly Snapey Susan